SIDDHARTHA CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the actions of the respondent in not mutating the property in the name of the petitioner in respect of which probate has already been granted. The petitioner also questions the action of the respondents in denying the mutation in spite of the fact that the other beneficiary of the will one Smti Sheila Margaret Sootinck has already been granted mutation and a lease agreement to this effect already issued in her favour.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

(3.) Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner 's grandmother (L) Amiya Choudhury was the owner in possession of a plot of land measuring about 10802 Sq. Ft./1003.9 Sq. meter situated in Oakland, Shillong. The counsel submits that prior to her demise on 29.03.2009, (L) Amiya Choudhury had executed a will in respect of the aforementioned property on 16.11.2007, bequeathing the property partially to the petitioner of an area measuring about 2563.47 Sq. Ft. and the remaining portion to one Sheila Margaret Sootinck measuring about 8239.51 Sq. Ft. Learned counsel submits that after the death of his grandmother, the executor of the will Smti Sheila Margaret Sootinck filed for probate before the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shillong, who vide judgment and order dated 27.02.2013 was pleased to grant probate of the will of (L) Amiya Choudhury.